"Smaller government" advocates

[rightwinger]

How profound..

And those who want war can enlist themselves
Those who want schools can pay for them themselves

Society does not work like that

Of course. Society works like if somebody wants something, get politicians to tax somebody else.

All these liberals talking about increasing taxes on themselves, yet they take every single write-off afforded to them. It's a dog and pony show. Nobody (regardless how much you earn or are worth) wants to pay taxes. We all seek to pay less.

By your reasoning.....if the rich want lower taxes, all they have to do is earn less

It would never work because everybody wants to earn more, even people like Buffet and Gates.

Part of having more is keeping more of what you earned. Yet when these Democrat politicians come out and say we should be taking more of what they have, people actually believe them.

I think you are getting there

Yes, the wealthy want to keep more of what they have. They want low taxes, they want a workforce that works for low wages, they want no government regulations.

We have been marching down that road for thirty years. We were promised a rising economic tide that would lift all boats. What we got was an economic tide that only lifts the yachts

I don't know where you heard that promise from, but the only one lifting up those yachts are the yacht owners themselves. In fact they lift their own yacht and many smaller boats around them.

What we were promised is the ability to pursue life, liberty and happiness. We were not guaranteed life, liberty and happiness. You still have to work for it. You still have to make sacrifices for it. You still have to chase your dream.

Now we are getting there

Yes, our founders were concerned with the ability of the average man to pursue life, liberty and happiness. Most government at the time treated workers as serfs whose sole purpose was to enrich the nobility

What has happened is we have allowed the super wealthy to place impediments to achieving life, liberty and happiness. Wages and benefits have been stifled, higher education and healthcare are out of reach of much of our workforce, spare time, vacations and weekends are disparaged as laziness of our workers

 

[rightwinger]

Yes, the good ole days before FDR
Rampant poverty, dust bowls, soup lines, massive migrations looking for work. Every man for himself

A libertarian dream

Could you at least *try* not to be so vapid, the libertarian "dream" is a world where the non-aggression principle is practiced and applied as equally to organizations and institutions (including government) as it is to every individual. One understands that libertarianism and the non-aggression principle are far too complex for those who can only view the world as "my party" versus "the other party" but at least try to do a little homework before you open your mouth and remove all doubt regarding your ignorance.

Unicorns and fairy tales

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Of course. Society works like if somebody wants something, get politicians to tax somebody else.

All these liberals talking about increasing taxes on themselves, yet they take every single write-off afforded to them. It's a dog and pony show. Nobody (regardless how much you earn or are worth) wants to pay taxes. We all seek to pay less.

By your reasoning.....if the rich want lower taxes, all they have to do is earn less

It would never work because everybody wants to earn more, even people like Buffet and Gates.

Part of having more is keeping more of what you earned. Yet when these Democrat politicians come out and say we should be taking more of what they have, people actually believe them.

I think you are getting there

Yes, the wealthy want to keep more of what they have. They want low taxes, they want a workforce that works for low wages, they want no government regulations.

We have been marching down that road for thirty years. We were promised a rising economic tide that would lift all boats. What we got was an economic tide that only lifts the yachts

I don't know where you heard that promise from, but the only one lifting up those yachts are the yacht owners themselves. In fact they lift their own yacht and many smaller boats around them.

What we were promised is the ability to pursue life, liberty and happiness. We were not guaranteed life, liberty and happiness. You still have to work for it. You still have to make sacrifices for it. You still have to chase your dream.

Now we are getting there

Yes, our founders were concerned with the ability of the average man to pursue life, liberty and happiness. Most government at the time treated workers as serfs whose sole purpose was to enrich the nobility

What has happened is we have allowed the super wealthy to place impediments to achieving life, liberty and happiness. Wages and benefits have been stifled, higher education and healthcare are out of reach of much of our workforce, spare time, vacations and weekends are disparaged as laziness of our workers

Yes, I have read and heard of this complaint repeatedly. Yet when this complaint about wages, benefits or a financial future are leveled, none have ever said "That's it! I'm not going to put up with it. I'm going to start my own business and earn what I want!"

As we look across the country, we see foreigners buying up gas/ convenient store stations. They invest in subway shops and Seven-Eleven stores. They work night and day and make a great living. Never hear of any complaints from those people.

But Americans? Complain that the rich are not giving them enough. The rich control my life and my pursuit of happiness. I'm not in control of such things. That's why I need government to force those people to make my life better.

 

[NightFox]

Yes, the good ole days before FDR
Rampant poverty, dust bowls, soup lines, massive migrations looking for work. Every man for himself

A libertarian dream

Could you at least *try* not to be so vapid, the libertarian "dream" is a world where the non-aggression principle is practiced and applied as equally to organizations and institutions (including government) as it is to every individual. One understands that libertarianism and the non-aggression principle are far too complex for those who can only view the world as "my party" versus "the other party" but at least try to do a little homework before you open your mouth and remove all doubt regarding your ignorance.

Unicorns and fairy tales

Like I said non-aggression is far too complex for people like you to understand, your brain is so steeped in the idea that violence initiated by government is moral that your head might explode if you even attempted to contemplate moral or ethical questions at any level that goes beyond what your partisan masters tell you to think. It's both sad and humorous that you cannot see how your belief system has been constructed for you by the propaganda of your overlords and how pavlovian your responses are to any one or any thing that challenges those beliefs.

As Nock pointed out, you're like a European Peasant of the Middle Ages whose life was so dominated by the Catholic Church and it's dogma that he could not even image an existence without it and where questioning the morality of Church dictates was so repulsive as to be unthinkable.

 

[Programmer]

I don't get people who say they want smaller government.

Mainly because I don't believe they want smaller government.

Most of the people who advocate smaller government are the sort of people who support the US having a massive armed forces. They're the sort of people who want the government to ban same sex marriage. They're the sort of people who want the govt to ban drugs like Marijuana, perhaps even alcohol.

In other words, they're people who want the government in YOUR face, just not in their face. They're happy for big government, just so long as it doesn't step on their patch. They're not gay, they're not into recreational drugs, they're not getting invaded by the US armed forces, so they just don't care and they're happy for big government in those areas.

Also, I've been discussing government subsidies. Yes, we all know about welfare (for your information, before you jump on my back about it, I'm in favor of welfare based on how long you have worked, and before you've worked for 5 years you should get no welfare at all unless you're in education and doing well in your education at that, and then the longer you've worked, the more you can get, like after 10 years an increase in payments, if you need them) and the left giving money to people who really shouldn't be getting it, but this isn't what's been spoken about here, so lay off this topic.
Government subsidies to farmer and big corporations. Seem the right is all in favor of handing out money to rich people. Seems strange to talk about smaller govt one minute, then advocate govt giving out loads of money to businesses the next minute.

Does anyone actually, really, truly, support smaller government?

Can’t agree with this post in its entirety, but the fundamental premise of the thread is correct.

Conservatives – the social right in particular – have no interest in ‘less’ or ‘smaller’ government; indeed, many on the right seek to increase the size and authority of government at the expense of individual liberty.

This is inaccurate. Instead, the GOP has some of these issues because of factions that comprise it. Fiscal conservatives are defined by this smaller government thing. They're just one shrinking voice amid people who want theocratic policy or big spend foreign politics.

 

[kaz]

I don't get people who say they want smaller government.

Mainly because I don't believe they want smaller government.

Most of the people who advocate smaller government are the sort of people who support the US having a massive armed forces. They're the sort of people who want the government to ban same sex marriage. They're the sort of people who want the govt to ban drugs like Marijuana, perhaps even alcohol.

In other words, they're people who want the government in YOUR face, just not in their face. They're happy for big government, just so long as it doesn't step on their patch. They're not gay, they're not into recreational drugs, they're not getting invaded by the US armed forces, so they just don't care and they're happy for big government in those areas.

Also, I've been discussing government subsidies. Yes, we all know about welfare (for your information, before you jump on my back about it, I'm in favor of welfare based on how long you have worked, and before you've worked for 5 years you should get no welfare at all unless you're in education and doing well in your education at that, and then the longer you've worked, the more you can get, like after 10 years an increase in payments, if you need them) and the left giving money to people who really shouldn't be getting it, but this isn't what's been spoken about here, so lay off this topic.
Government subsidies to farmer and big corporations. Seem the right is all in favor of handing out money to rich people. Seems strange to talk about smaller govt one minute, then advocate govt giving out loads of money to businesses the next minute.

Does anyone actually, really, truly, support smaller government?

1. I'm one of those who wants smaller government.
2. A large military doesn't mean a large government.
3. I don't want the government to ban same sex marriage, or pot, or guns.
4. I am for ending ALL subsidies and entitlements. THAT is a smaller government.
5. You tend to label all conservatives the same. Most social conservatives who want strict bans on what they call "immoral" things aren't the same people who demand smaller government. Open your eyes, stop listening to the Daily Show, and think.

I'm with you other than the military, our involvement in everyone's business across the world is clearly big government. Though I'd prefer to do that then have our government as involved as it is in the lives of Americans, on that we agree

 

[NightFox]

This is inaccurate. Instead, the GOP has some of these issues because of factions that comprise it. Fiscal conservatives are defined by this smaller government thing. They're just one shrinking voice amid people who want theocratic policy or big spend foreign politics.

Honestly I don't think fiscal conservatism is a "shrinking" voice within circles of those that control the GOP, I think it's a completely dead one. The only difference between what the GOP wants and what the Democrats want is the specific configuration of massive central government. IMHO all the talk about "shrinking government" and "cutting spending" that comes out of the GOP is nothing more than bread and circuses to placate the rank and file membership.

As far as "big spend foreign politics" goes both major parties are parties of War, I think it's quite possible that we've now entered an era of war without end where Americans that are alive today will never again see a day where their country is at peace no matter which party is in power. The river of blood and treasure being funneled into raining destruction down on other parts of the globe now stretches as far as the eye can see and Washington has become so good at hiding the realities of War from the eyes of the average citizen and creating new dragons to slay that I cannot see how it will be stopped any time soon.

 

[danielpalos]

By your reasoning.....if the rich want lower taxes, all they have to do is earn less

It would never work because everybody wants to earn more, even people like Buffet and Gates.

Part of having more is keeping more of what you earned. Yet when these Democrat politicians come out and say we should be taking more of what they have, people actually believe them.

I think you are getting there

Yes, the wealthy want to keep more of what they have. They want low taxes, they want a workforce that works for low wages, they want no government regulations.

We have been marching down that road for thirty years. We were promised a rising economic tide that would lift all boats. What we got was an economic tide that only lifts the yachts

I don't know where you heard that promise from, but the only one lifting up those yachts are the yacht owners themselves. In fact they lift their own yacht and many smaller boats around them.

What we were promised is the ability to pursue life, liberty and happiness. We were not guaranteed life, liberty and happiness. You still have to work for it. You still have to make sacrifices for it. You still have to chase your dream.

Now we are getting there

Yes, our founders were concerned with the ability of the average man to pursue life, liberty and happiness. Most government at the time treated workers as serfs whose sole purpose was to enrich the nobility

What has happened is we have allowed the super wealthy to place impediments to achieving life, liberty and happiness. Wages and benefits have been stifled, higher education and healthcare are out of reach of much of our workforce, spare time, vacations and weekends are disparaged as laziness of our workers

Yes, I have read and heard of this complaint repeatedly. Yet when this complaint about wages, benefits or a financial future are leveled, none have ever said "That's it! I'm not going to put up with it. I'm going to start my own business and earn what I want!"

As we look across the country, we see foreigners buying up gas/ convenient store stations. They invest in subway shops and Seven-Eleven stores. They work night and day and make a great living. Never hear of any complaints from those people.

But Americans? Complain that the rich are not giving them enough. The rich control my life and my pursuit of happiness. I'm not in control of such things. That's why I need government to force those people to make my life better.

it is about equality; why can labor not simply obtain unemployment compensation that clears our poverty guidelines simply for being unemployed on an at-will basis in our at-will employment States? it is State law and a federal Doctrine; labor can also quit, strike, or otherwise cease work.

 

[Contumacious]

Big government let's big government start endless wars, grow more govt, create massive social programs, rack up never ending debt etc.

About what I thought
Small Government means not helping the poor

Where have conservatives ever complained about big government meaning we have the largest military in world history?

The govts main duty is the protection of its citizens. First and foremost and no that doesn't mean never ending spending or wars. It's too bad that you can't be that honest on all of the worthless social programs that do nothing for the citizens.

That has never been the governments main duty

Social Programs do more for our citizens than the military does

You're an imbecile. Social programs didn't exist before FDR, so how can you say that protecting citizens was not the government's main duty?

Yes, the good ole days before FDR
Rampant poverty, dust bowls, soup lines, massive migrations looking for work. Every man for himself

A libertarian dream

Yep, the good ol' days AFTER FDR
Rampant poverty, dust bowls, soup lines, massive migrations looking for work. Every man for himself, gargantuan welfare/warfare police state


A socialist/fascist dream.


.

 

[danielpalos]

About what I thought
Small Government means not helping the poor

Where have conservatives ever complained about big government meaning we have the largest military in world history?

The govts main duty is the protection of its citizens. First and foremost and no that doesn't mean never ending spending or wars. It's too bad that you can't be that honest on all of the worthless social programs that do nothing for the citizens.

That has never been the governments main duty

Social Programs do more for our citizens than the military does

You're an imbecile. Social programs didn't exist before FDR, so how can you say that protecting citizens was not the government's main duty?

Yes, the good ole days before FDR
Rampant poverty, dust bowls, soup lines, massive migrations looking for work. Every man for himself

A libertarian dream

Yep, the good ol' days AFTER FDR
Rampant poverty, dust bowls, soup lines, massive migrations looking for work. Every man for himself, gargantuan welfare/warfare police state


A socialist/fascist dream.


.

What rampant poverty in the US? You mean the one the Right creates by putting limits on our social safety nets? Or, how the Right complains about how the least wealthy in the US may obtain steak and lobster on their EBT cards?

 

[Stephanie]

I don't get people who say they want smaller government.

Mainly because I don't believe they want smaller government.

Most of the people who advocate smaller government are the sort of people who support the US having a massive armed forces. They're the sort of people who want the government to ban same sex marriage. They're the sort of people who want the govt to ban drugs like Marijuana, perhaps even alcohol.

In other words, they're people who want the government in YOUR face, just not in their face. They're happy for big government, just so long as it doesn't step on their patch. They're not gay, they're not into recreational drugs, they're not getting invaded by the US armed forces, so they just don't care and they're happy for big government in those areas.

Also, I've been discussing government subsidies. Yes, we all know about welfare (for your information, before you jump on my back about it, I'm in favor of welfare based on how long you have worked, and before you've worked for 5 years you should get no welfare at all unless you're in education and doing well in your education at that, and then the longer you've worked, the more you can get, like after 10 years an increase in payments, if you need them) and the left giving money to people who really shouldn't be getting it, but this isn't what's been spoken about here, so lay off this topic.
Government subsidies to farmer and big corporations. Seem the right is all in favor of handing out money to rich people. Seems strange to talk about smaller govt one minute, then advocate govt giving out loads of money to businesses the next minute.

Does anyone actually, really, truly, support smaller government?

so my dear, you really didn't want this debated you just wanted to make a statement. you already have your ill perceived views of the people who wants smaller Government and it shows when you bring up homosexual marriage, you want a tyrant Government who can step on and over the RIGHTS of the people, their votes and states rights. that's all. luckily because of more people that thinks like you do we already have the TYRANT government and I don't see it getting any better

 

[Programmer]

This is inaccurate. Instead, the GOP has some of these issues because of factions that comprise it. Fiscal conservatives are defined by this smaller government thing. They're just one shrinking voice amid people who want theocratic policy or big spend foreign politics.

Honestly I don't think fiscal conservatism is a "shrinking" voice within circles of those that control the GOP, I think it's a completely dead one. The only difference between what the GOP wants and what the Democrats want is the specific configuration of massive central government. IMHO all the talk about "shrinking government" and "cutting spending" that comes out of the GOP is nothing more than bread and circuses to placate the rank and file membership.

As far as "big spend foreign politics" goes both major parties are parties of War, I think it's quite possible that we've now entered an era of war without end where Americans that are alive today will never again see a day where their country is at peace no matter which party is in power. The river of blood and treasure being funneled into raining destruction down on other parts of the globe now stretches as far as the eye can see and Washington has become so good at hiding the realities of War from the eyes of the average citizen and creating new dragons to slay that I cannot see how it will be stopped any time soon.

Both parties are married to the war thing, but I think permawar has been going on for some time already. There may have been this expectation that the end of the cold war was the end of permanent war, but it was just... reconfigured. I like how you use that 'configuration'. That's all that's on the table, really.

 

[Stephanie]

Repugs, Cons, and the Tea Maggots, all bitch and gripe about how they want smaller Gubmint, blah, blah, blah, BUT, love BIG Gubmint when it comes to starting unwinnable wars that drag on for an eternity with no end in sight, and cost the country Trillions of dollars..

Funny too how they love BIG Gubmint when it comes to a woman's right to choose, and drug testing welfare receipents, gee why don't drug test members of congress??

lol, so how many of the Democrats voted for the IRAQ war? and your name calling show you are childish

 

[rightwinger]

About what I thought
Small Government means not helping the poor

Where have conservatives ever complained about big government meaning we have the largest military in world history?

The govts main duty is the protection of its citizens. First and foremost and no that doesn't mean never ending spending or wars. It's too bad that you can't be that honest on all of the worthless social programs that do nothing for the citizens.

That has never been the governments main duty

Social Programs do more for our citizens than the military does

You're an imbecile. Social programs didn't exist before FDR, so how can you say that protecting citizens was not the government's main duty?

Yes, the good ole days before FDR
Rampant poverty, dust bowls, soup lines, massive migrations looking for work. Every man for himself

A libertarian dream

Yep, the good ol' days AFTER FDR
Rampant poverty, dust bowls, soup lines, massive migrations looking for work. Every man for himself, gargantuan welfare/warfare police state


A socialist/fascist dream.


.

If looking out for fellow Americans is your view of socialism/fascism......maybe it is not so bad

 

[rightwinger]

Repugs, Cons, and the Tea Maggots, all bitch and gripe about how they want smaller Gubmint, blah, blah, blah, BUT, love BIG Gubmint when it comes to starting unwinnable wars that drag on for an eternity with no end in sight, and cost the country Trillions of dollars..

Funny too how they love BIG Gubmint when it comes to a woman's right to choose, and drug testing welfare receipents, gee why don't drug test members of congress??

lol, so how many of the Democrats voted for the IRAQ war? and your name calling show you are childish

Most Democrats voted AGAINST the Iraq war

 

[NightFox]

What rampant poverty in the US? You mean the one the Right creates by putting limits on our social safety nets? Or, how the Right complains about how the least wealthy in the US may obtain steak and lobster on their EBT cards?

Err..ummm.. the limits placed on our "social safety nets" are not a product of "the Right" they are a product of the fact that resources are not infinite and that due to everybody and their brother having their hand out for federal subsidies only (last I looked) 18 cents of every subsidy dollar goes toward helping those that are poor. We have a welfare state that is primarily serving the needs of the NOT POOR because buying votes from the poor is far less efficient than buying the votes of the not poor.

Of course neither major party is even remotely interested in changing this situation since they both derive enormous benefits from it.

 

[Contumacious]

The govts main duty is the protection of its citizens. First and foremost and no that doesn't mean never ending spending or wars. It's too bad that you can't be that honest on all of the worthless social programs that do nothing for the citizens.

That has never been the governments main duty

Social Programs do more for our citizens than the military does

You're an imbecile. Social programs didn't exist before FDR, so how can you say that protecting citizens was not the government's main duty?

Yes, the good ole days before FDR
Rampant poverty, dust bowls, soup lines, massive migrations looking for work. Every man for himself

A libertarian dream

Yep, the good ol' days AFTER FDR
Rampant poverty, dust bowls, soup lines, massive migrations looking for work. Every man for himself, gargantuan welfare/warfare police state


A socialist/fascist dream.


.

If looking out for fellow Americans is your view of socialism/fascism......maybe it is not so bad

GOOGLE TRANSLATION:


FORCING TAXPAYERS AND PRODUCERS TO FINANCIALLY SUPPORT ME IS A GOOD THING . I HOPE IT LASTS. LONG LIVE COMRADE SANDERS

 

[rightwinger]

That has never been the governments main duty

Social Programs do more for our citizens than the military does

You're an imbecile. Social programs didn't exist before FDR, so how can you say that protecting citizens was not the government's main duty?

Yes, the good ole days before FDR
Rampant poverty, dust bowls, soup lines, massive migrations looking for work. Every man for himself

A libertarian dream

Yep, the good ol' days AFTER FDR
Rampant poverty, dust bowls, soup lines, massive migrations looking for work. Every man for himself, gargantuan welfare/warfare police state


A socialist/fascist dream.


.

If looking out for fellow Americans is your view of socialism/fascism......maybe it is not so bad

GOOGLE TRANSLATION:


FORCING TAXPAYERS AND PRODUCERS TO FINANCIALLY SUPPORT ME IS A GOOD THING . I HOPE IT LASTS. LONG LIVE COMRADE SANDERS

Taxpayers are not forced. Our tax structure is established by legislators elected by We the People

 

[Contumacious]

You're an imbecile. Social programs didn't exist before FDR, so how can you say that protecting citizens was not the government's main duty?

Yes, the good ole days before FDR
Rampant poverty, dust bowls, soup lines, massive migrations looking for work. Every man for himself

A libertarian dream

Yep, the good ol' days AFTER FDR
Rampant poverty, dust bowls, soup lines, massive migrations looking for work. Every man for himself, gargantuan welfare/warfare police state


A socialist/fascist dream.


.

If looking out for fellow Americans is your view of socialism/fascism......maybe it is not so bad

GOOGLE TRANSLATION:


FORCING TAXPAYERS AND PRODUCERS TO FINANCIALLY SUPPORT ME IS A GOOD THING . I HOPE IT LASTS. LONG LIVE COMRADE SANDERS

Taxpayers are not forced. Our tax structure is established by legislators elected by We the People

GOOGLE TRANSLATION


50% OF THE ELECTORATE BELONG TO THE SLAVE PARTY - THE DEMOPUBLICANS - IF POLITICIANS WANT TO BE "ELECTABLE" THEY HAVE TO GRANDSTAND TO "WE THE PARASITES"



.

 

[NightFox]

Taxpayers are not forced. Our tax structure is established by legislators elected by We the People

LOL, what an ignorant rebuttal, since when does theft become moral simply because "the majority" voted for it? If you take the property of a peaceful citizen against their will it's called theft and no amount of voting will ever make it moral.

If the majority votes to take your house away from you and give it to somebody it deems more deserving would you call that moral ? Of course you wouldn't because you would be the direct victim of the theft, but you're perfectly okay if government force is utilized against some other peaceful citizen as long as you agree with the governments purported purpose of said theft.

Of course you'd understand that concept if you actually had a grasp on morality but since you obviously don't I expect it'll fly right over your head.